Do you think government forcing suburbs to be demolished is the only way to solve the "sprawl problem"? (difference, parks)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The geographic sprawl of recently-built cities is due to the transportation network and the availability of land. Compact, dense housing is not a defining characteristic of big cities, it is a defining characteristic of any human habitation, large or small, that was built before the automobile.
In other words, "sprawl" is not the same thing as "rural."
Eh, going to Safeway takes me that long and uses no gas. And convenience stores aren't exactly unknown in the suburbs.
And?
I blow $2.25 on a cup of coffee at Starbucks every now and again without much thought. Fifty cents isn't very meaningful to most of us. I mean, I go to the grocery store something 2-3 a week. Usually on the way home so there's not real cost besides a maybe one mile (15 cents) diversion. Other basic things are similarly really not inconvenient at all in auto-oriented suburbs.
Quote:
I can think of 2 reasons why some of our modern sprawling suburbs wouldn't have the density of the 1674 image when they're 50 years old: zoning laws, and no shortage of land.
I'm far from being an expert on 17th century building practices. But I'd guess that, between the time the fort was built, and the above image from 1673 was made, there was a pattern somewhat like this: houses "a" "c" and "e" were built first. Then, houses "b" and "d" were built between them. Then, as demand and wealth increased, maybe houses "b" and "c" were razed to make way for a bigger multi-unit house, or a store with living quarters above, etc.
And you'd be ignoring the big one and focusing on the small details if you were to do so. In 1674 transportation revolved around feet and horses. Early cities and towns were developed too minimize transportation costs. Today an inexpensive car is affordable for your median American household. On top of that, you have other technological advancements. You couldn't got to one supermarket and get your food for a week or two. There was no canning. There was no refrigeration. You went every day. On foot. Nor was there running water or electricity. Basically, if you weren't involved in agriculture you lived very densely because transportation was very expensive and time consuming. Development reflected economic reality, and people lived very densely especially when you consider that they didn't have modern high-rise buildings like we do today. Not that that wasn't without problems. Look at the plagues and fires that periodically swept through early cities...
I blow $2.25 on a cup of coffee at Starbucks every now and again without much thought. Fifty cents isn't very meaningful to most of us. I mean, I go to the grocery store something 2-3 a week. Usually on the way home so there's not real cost besides a maybe one mile (15 cents) diversion. Other basic things are similarly really not inconvenient at all in auto-oriented suburbs.
Nor are they particularly inconvenient in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, which was basically my point--some folks keep trying to argue that living in a walkable neighborhood is so much more work than living in an auto-oriented neighborhood because we walk to the store once in a while. The question is, is convenience the only factor we should consider when building our communities?
Everyone brings up good points about why NYC, in its earliest form, isn't a good comparison to modern sprawl. The only reason I made the comparison, was to say that modern sprawl doesn't have to be leveled and completely thrown away, to make room for new urban construction; it can evolve into a more urban form in time, if allowed to do so.
Calgary and Houston have relatively large areas of single family bungalows that are gradually being made denser. Sometimes they bungalows are replaced by two storey homes on smaller lots, or townhouses, or sometimes even lowrise apartment buildings. Here's a neighbourhood like that in Calgary: Calgary, AB, Canada - Google Maps
Another great way to urbanize the suburbs would be to turn single use areas into mixed use areas by adding whatever uses are missing. So you could build apartments on a shopping mall parking lot, retail and offices in tower in the park areas, condos with retail at grade in office parks, etc. Shopping malls are an especially good candidate for this, at least in Canadian cities, because they often have bus terminals so there is already fairly good transit.
I have no problem with subsidized mass transit, in the city or the burbs. The Denver area Regional Transit District requires fares to cover 1/3 of the cost. I don't know if that's on each route, or overall.
Consider yourself fortunate to live in an area that will soon have many more transit options. While it will never become a New York or Chicago in that fashion, you, or your friends, will come to appreciate having the option for many trips.
Nor are they particularly inconvenient in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, which was basically my point--some folks keep trying to argue that living in a walkable neighborhood is so much more work than living in an auto-oriented neighborhood because we walk to the store once in a while. The question is, is convenience the only factor we should consider when building our communities?
Convenience has to be a big factor b/c convenience sells. Tell the busy parent they "should" invest a lot of time in walking to the store for moral reasons, and they'll laugh. Time is money. You want to live in a community where lots of people walk to the store, move to a retirement community where time isn't such a hot commodity.
Nor are they particularly inconvenient in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, which was basically my point--some folks keep trying to argue that living in a walkable neighborhood is so much more work than living in an auto-oriented neighborhood because we walk to the store once in a while. The question is, is convenience the only factor we should consider when building our communities?
Oh, I agree. It's generally not any less convenient, but it is often more expensive for the same convenience, although it's just as easy to find auto-dependent suburbs that cost a lot. For some people, the added expensive is worth it. Others are more concerned with crime, schools, and the cost of housing and land than in living where they can walk to a store or bar. Others just want some space, which is hard to do in a walkable neighborhood. All those should, and are, considerations. Builders build what people will buy, and the demand for walkable neighborhoods has seen quite a lot of infill development.
If one desires walkable, it can be found in most mid-sized cities. Los Angeles get's a lot of anti-sprawl rhetoric, but for all of that there's no shortage of walkable neighborhoods. If you want to see car dependent, check out the South.
You want to live in a community where lots of people walk to the store, move to a retirement community where time isn't such a hot commodity.
Or maybe many dense urban centers? In many cases, driving would be less convenient and maybe more time consuming.
Last edited by nei; 02-19-2012 at 10:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
